Video Discussion 1 - Environmental Policy - Google Docs

pdf

School

University of South Florida *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

4372

Subject

Arts Humanities

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by ProfessorToad3567

Video Discussion 1 - Environmental Policy It’s evident from the resource videos provided, that there are many ways to approach any topic of influence. However, do they all resonate or have the same impact? Clearly, since there are so many approaches they each have an influence on different populations or mindsets. These approaches range from perseverance, purpose, peace, and education to approaches such as force, aggression, or violence. Individuals like John Francis and the Indigenous people of Darnley Island made their approach to solving problems through peace, art, and education. John Francis witnessing an oil spill in San Francisco Bay sparked his determination to make a point through a seven year-long vow of silence and a journey of walking across the United States from the Pacific to the Atlantic Ocean. John Francis managed to acquire his Undergraduate and Masters degrees in Environmental Studies along the way, all while still keeping his vow of silence. He began writing about oil spills at a Phd level, being one of the only people to do this at the time of the Exxon-Valdez spill. This determination to follow his heart on a matter he was passionate about proved to be a viable asset to the government at the time of the spill. The indigenous people of Darnley Island also took a similar approach as Francis. They saw the sea as sacred but they also saw the environmental degradation ghost nets had on marine life and marine ecosystems. They took an active approach to remove these nets and used them as

an avenue of creating artwork. This artwork was then a significant source of education to show others how something seemingly innocent is truly negatively influencing an environment. Moving onto the strategies of James Lee and the Sea Shepherds, we are seeing utilization of aggression and violence as a means to influence. James Lee, a “self-styled environmental anarchist”, thought that harassing and taking hostage employees of Discovery channel, whose purpose is to entertain and educate the public, would get his outlandish beliefs taken seriously. But, the caveat to his story is that even during the entire hostage situation, the Discovery channel never interrupted their scheduled programming and never gave him the spotlight he probably wanted. This shows that despite his violent approach with weapons and explosives, it had no positive impact on his agenda and ultimately cost him his life. In regards to the Sea Shepherds, their approach to saving whales from slaughter was to stand their ground forcefully and dangerously by placing their ship between a Japanese ship and a refuel ship. This eventually led to the Japanese ship succumbing to their demands but to what cost? It put multiple lives in danger and saved a few whales in the process. And, although saving the lives of whales is a positive result, destroying ships and possibly costing people their lives is a violent strategy. The best strategy, in my opinion, is approaching issues with peace, knowledge, and determination like John Francis and the indigenous people of Darnley Island. No violence or aggression was needed, yet they still made an enormous impact on the public opinion and for the environment. Both parties decided to go after the bigger picture instead of an isolated group. I think that’s the overall strength of approaching issues with peace and perseverance. Make change at the policy level by education and hard-work. The weakness of the approach may be that not everybody has that perseverance or determination it may take to make change.

The approach of violence and aggression from cases like Lee and the Sea Shepherds are, in my opinion, very ineffective. I find them to be short-term solutions with higher risks associated. I understand why people may think their actions are “heroic”, because it’s eye-catching and gets people talking; which may be its only strength. But, overall, I think it paints their intentions in a bad light and turns people away from the issue at hand, making this their weakness. I do think that the best strategy would depend on the situation because every situation is ultimately different. However, I don’t think violence or force has ever really gotten people to willingly cooperate or understand the aggressors viewpoint in a positive manner. I think guilting people and instilling fear is a step backwards for the goal. On the other hand, I think that when your backs against a wall and you have no other way out, then sometimes aggression is necessary, like for the citizens of Love Canal. These people were placed in a dangerous environment that was costing them their lives and harming their overall well-being, yet no one was listening. When compared to the case of James Lee, the citizens of Love Canal had no other choice but to make a big statement by holding government officials hostage because they were put in danger not by their own choice. However, James Lee created the danger himself for his own agenda and his own ideologies. I don’t think of them as the same thing, I see parents trying to save their children and fight for their lives in Love Canal and then I see a dangerous man that saw procreation as exploitation of the planet and put others lives at risk for his own advantage.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version